Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreParle Agro manufactures the fruit-drink "Appy Fizz" and had been paying Kerala VAT at 12.5% by classifying it as a "fruit juice based drink." Tax authorities instead sought to tax it at 20% as an "aerated branded soft drink," relying on an earlier assessment against a Parle distributor that the Kerala High Court had upheld. After Parle's own clarification application was rejected by the tax Committee and that rejection was upheld by the Kerala High Court (and a review petition also dismissed), Parle and a related dealer, "M/s. We Six Traders," appealed to the Supreme Court; the tax department separately appealed an interim High Court order favourable to Parle.
The Supreme Court examined the composition and marketing of "Appy Fizz" and held that it is properly classified as a fruit juice based drink under Entry 71 (as amended by S.R.O. No.119 of 2008), not as an aerated branded soft drink taxed at the higher 20% rate. It allowed Parle's appeals, set aside the Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment and the tax Committee's clarification order, and declared the correct classification. The Department's own appeal (challenging a favourable interim order for Parle) was dismissed, while the connected appeals of the distributor "We Six Traders" were disposed of on the direction that its proceedings be concluded consistently with this judgment, with any amount deposited under the interim order to be adjusted accordingly.
How a product is scientifically and commercially described (ingredients, marketing, common understanding), not just its carbonation or packaging, determines its tax classification, and a taxpayer can successfully challenge a higher tax slab all the way to the Supreme Court by building a strong factual/expert record on classification.
